Florida mom to get new trial: Did court detect a ‘stand your ground’ inequity?

A Florida mom sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a warning
shot in what she said was self-defense will receive a new trial, on
grounds that the jury was not properly instructed about how to apply
the state’s robust self-defense law that allows people who feel
threatened to stand their ground. The case of Marissa Alexander, who
is black, has raised concerns about the extent to which “stand your
ground” laws allow biases to creep into jury decisions.
Ms. Alexander was found guilty in May 2012 of discharging a deadly
weapon near her estranged husband and newborn baby. She countered that
she had long been abused by her husband and had fired the shot as a
warning for him not to get any closer to her during what was becoming
a physical altercation. He was not injured.
Under Florida law, people have no duty to retreat from danger before
fighting back, even with deadly force. But a judge ruled that the
stand-your-ground law didn’t apply in Alexander’s case. After a jury
found her guilty, the judge sentenced her to 20 years in prison,
citing Florida’s tough minimum sentencing laws, even though Alexander
had never before been in trouble with the law.
Critics have cited Alexander’s case as an example of unfair
application of a stand-your-ground self-defense law, and they point to
the acquittal of George Zimmerman this summer to buttress their
charge. The half-white, half-Hispanic neighborhood watch captain was
found not guilty of killing Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, after
following the unarmed youth onto a dark neighborhood path in Sanford,
Fla. Mr. Zimmerman, too, claimed self-defense.
(Interestingly, the same prosecutor who charged Zimmerman with
second-degree murder, Angela Corey, led the prosecution against
Alexander. “She put a round in the chamber, and she fired that shot
out of anger, not fear,” Ms. Corey told the Washington Post.)
In granting Alexander a new trial, a Florida appellate court did not
directly address potential inequity in how the law was applied to a
black woman versus the biracial Zimmerman. Rather, the ruling noted
procedural problems in applying the law during her first trial — in
particular, how the jury was instructed to interpret it.
In the Zimmerman case, the trial judge took special care to explain to
the jury the self-defense doctrine, pointing out that it was incumbent
upon the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman’s actions went beyond
self-defense in order to convict him. In Alexander’s case, the
appellate court found that the jury instructions instead put the onus
on Alexander to prove that the shot was in self-defense — and that
those instructions were wrong.
“The burden never shifts to the defendant,” the court said in its
ruling handed down Thursday.
The ruling is the latest in a slow process of judicial vetting of the
new stand-your-ground laws, which is gradually establishing the legal
standards for how such laws are to be applied, says one Florida law
professor.
“Appeals courts are supposed to decide cases based on law, but they’re
human beings, too, and they have been known to fudge” in favor of
equity rather than mechanical application of criminal law, says Bob
Dekle, a law professor at the University of Florida, in Gainesville.
“That’s where the old legal maxim comes from, that says hard cases
make bad law. But in this particular case, based on the jury
instruction placing the burden of proof on the defendant, it would
appear that a mechanical application of the law would bring you the
result that the [appeals court] came up with.”
Stand-your-ground laws are intended to limit prosecutorial overreach
in cases in which people clearly acted in self-defense. The laws
generally allow a defendant to ask for a pretrial hearing in which a
judge can inspect his or her self-defense claim. If the judge
determines that self-defense was the motive, the defendant wins
immunity from criminal and civil prosecution.
In Alexander’s case, her stand-your-ground claim was rejected because
the trial judge found “insufficient evidence that the Defendant
reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great
bodily harm to herself.” The judge based that finding mainly on the
fact that Alexander left the house to retrieve a gun from her car and
then returned to the home — behavior that the judge deemed to be
“inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life.”
The laws have also been applied in ways no lawmaker intended — by gang
members in the aftermath of gun fights, for example. Some studies show
that such laws tend to favor white defendants over black defendants.
In Florida, more-detailed case-by-case reviews show that blacks invoke
the stand-your-ground law more often than white defendants do, and
succeed more often in getting judges to agree with their self-defense
claims.
Such laws, now on the books in 22 states, have come under intense
scrutiny since the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in February 2012.
As the six-woman jury in the Zimmerman trial saw the law, what
ultimately mattered was that Zimmerman believed he was at risk of
serious injury. Those jurors did not resolve questions about whether
Zimmerman should be held culpable for decisions he made leading up to
the shooting, including following Trayvon despite the admonition of a
nonemergency 911 operator not to do so.
Alexander, who has been in prison for three years, can now seek
release on bond until her new trial. Some of her supporters are urging
state prosecutors not to refile the charges against her, given the
time she has already served. Before her trial, Alexander refused a
plea deal that would have given her three years in jail.

The Christian Science Monitor is an international news organization that delivers thoughtful, global coverage. The Monitor is global, both in practice and in spirit. The Las Vegas Tribune features a variety of contributor from the Christian Science Monitor.

Donations

LasVegasTribune.com has a handful of honest hardworking editors and researchers. We are working diligently to bring you the truth no matter the cost. We have no membership fees and have no plans for it in the future. We rely on the compassion and dedication of our faithful volunteers and donations from our loyal readers.

Please donate as much as you feel comfortable. We have multiple donation values for your convenience as well as donation you can enter your own value.

We thank you for your support, and please only donate what you can afford.